ELIJAH UKOH VS THE STATE
August 20, 2025CHIEF IKEDUWA GBARUKO & ANOR VS UKAEGBU IROEGBU & ANOR
August 20, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1972) Legalpedia (SC) 41140
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Thu May 11, 1972
Suit Number: SC.271/66
CORAM
UMARU ATU KALGO
OLAJOMPO AKINKUGBE, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL
FATAYI-WILLIAMS,JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
CHIEF ASIYA ITA EFFIOM OTUEKONG & ORS APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The plaintiffs in a representative capacity (family and descendants of Etubom Effiom Otu Ekong (deceased)), sued the defendant, seeking a revocation of the conveyance of part of the family land made by the late Etubom Effiom without the consent of other family members.
HELD
The Court held that this appeal must succeed and it is allowed. The judgment of the High Court, Calabar, in Suit No. C/33/1964 is set aside including the order for costs. We order that the case be sent back for re-trial before the High Court, Calabar where parties may, if they be so advised, amend their pleadings. We order also that the respondent shall pay appellants their costs.
ISSUES
Whether the learned Judge erred in law in refusing the application of the plaintiffs counsel to call 2nd plaintiff as a witness when Order 42 Rules 1, 2 and 3 of the High Court Rules (ER) did not render such evidence inadmissible.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
EFFECT OF WRONGFULLY EXCLUDED EVIDENCE
“The wrongful exclusion of evidence shall not of itself be a ground for the reversal of any decision in any case if it shall appear to the court on appeal that had the evidence so excluded been admitted it may reasonably be held that the decision would have been the same.” COKER, JSC.
CASES CITED
Briscoe v. Briscoe (1968) P. 501,
Elias v. Disu & Ors. (1962) 1 All NLR 214
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Rules of Court (Eastern Region of Nigeria)
Evidence Act
